Our clients were a married couple based in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, who owned their residential property outright alongside a newly constructed residential property.
Area: Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire
Capital Raised: £232.5k
Date: 2019
Our clients were a married couple based in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, who owned their residential property outright alongside a newly constructed residential property.
The clients had recently completed the construction of a new three-bedroom end-of-terrace property, built to a high specification with all relevant sign-offs and warranties in place.
At the time of the application, the clients had moved into the newly constructed property while their previous home was already being marketed for sale.
The clients required funding to refinance an expiring development facility and allow additional time for the sale of their existing property.
Their objectives were to:
The refinance was intended to provide the clients with sufficient flexibility to sell the property without pressure or the need for costly extensions.
This case involved several important complexities that required fast action and careful structuring.
The transaction centred around refinancing an expiring development-related facility within a tight timeframe.
The repayment strategy relied entirely on the future sale of the clients’ original property, while the clients themselves had a relatively modest income profile.
Traditional lenders were unsuitable due to the short-term nature of the requirement, the urgency involved, and the reliance on a sale-based exit strategy.
We arranged a tailored regulated bridging loan designed specifically to refinance the expiring facility and provide additional time for the property sale.
The funding solution included:
The structure enabled the clients to refinance the existing borrowing while avoiding unnecessary pressure to sell quickly below market value.
This case required a fast and carefully structured approach throughout the transaction.
We carried out a detailed assessment of the clients’ development position, refinance requirement, and proposed exit strategy before structuring a bridging facility aligned to the future property sale.
A suitable lender was sourced that could accommodate time-sensitive refinance requirements and provide sufficient flexibility around the planned sale process.
Throughout the process, communication between all parties was managed proactively to ensure the refinance completed efficiently before the expiry of the existing facility.
The bridging loan completed successfully, enabling the clients to refinance the expiring facility and proceed with the sale process without unnecessary pressure.
As a result, the clients were able to:
Conclusion:
This case highlights how bridging finance can provide effective solutions for refinancing expiring development-related borrowing where timing is critical and repayment depends on property sale.
By focusing on asset value and exit strategy, bridging lenders can help clients avoid financial pressure while maximising the value achieved from a future sale.